The Maze of Legal Scholarship and Political Impeachment

In the ongoing debate around President Trump’s impeachment, a significant factor has been the number of legal scholars who have publicly lent their support to impeachment efforts. However, the question arises: how many legal scholars opposed it, and what exactly qualifies someone as a 'legal scholar'?

Qualifications and Impact of Legal Scholars

'Legal scholars' have often been cited as lending credibility to various arguments, but what do they really mean by this title? Do you take a test or receive a certification to become a legal scholar, or is it as easy as joining the 'mail-order preacher' league? For those who did go to law school, pass the bar exam, and perhaps hold a professorial position, the title might carry more weight, but for the public at large, it often rings hollow.

I, too, bear the title of a legal scholar, though I did not sign the letter. And if I were to sign a letter opposing Trump’s impeachment, it would carry the same weight as those who did support it – no one pays attention.

Climate Change and Scientific Consensus

A parallel can be drawn with scientific consensus, where over 500 scientists signed a letter stating that they do not believe in the seriousness of climate change. Perhaps these scientists see the world more clearly, but the public’s reaction says it all: no one listens. It highlights the politicization and public distrust in various fields of expertise.

Polarization and Political Expediency

Any fair observer might note the political polarization among legal scholars, with a significant number of them aligning their opinions with their respective political affiliations. Academia, particularly the left-leaning institutions, has seen a mass stance against President Trump, much to the amusement and disbelief of those who see through the underlying political motivations.

The House Committees’ decision to forego using the judicial branch to decide on matters of privilege or abuse of power is intriguing. Instead of seeking a judicial opinion, they framed the situation as so dire that impeachment was a must, despite the lack of time and substance. By invoking obstruction of justice and abuse of power, they sidestepped the courts, even though the impeachment process itself should be transparent and subject to legal scrutiny.

The Role of the President as Chief Law Enforcement Officer

The President's role as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation brings to light several ethical and legal quandaries. The impeachment proceedings can be seen as a dereliction of this duty, given the absence of a thorough investigation into possible crimes against the sovereignty of another country. This oversight could set a dangerous precedent for how presidential powers are exercised.

The political climate has led to a perception that the President is shielded from legal scrutiny based on potential future political rivals. This raises questions about the integrity of the judicial and political systems. If a President can claim executive privilege despite a subpoena, it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law.

In conclusion, while legal scholars and scientists might lend a veneer of credibility to their arguments, their influence on public opinion is often superficial. The politicization of these titles highlights the need for a more robust and unbiased system of accountability in both law and science.